EX-OFFICIAL SAYS OUSTER WAS PERSONAL

Menifee city officials were politically and personally motivated to remove Marc Miller from his position on the Planning Commission because he opposed a general plan that he believes favors residential developers, according to new documents filed in his civil lawsuit against the city.

In the suit, Miller alleges the city violated the state’s open meetings law and Menifee city ordinances, and also breached his contract as an appointed official on the city’s chief planning body. He is seeking reinstatement to his position as a planning commissioner, retroactive pay at a rate of $75 per meeting and to be paid for damages and attorney fees.

“Marc was unlawfully removed for the personal benefit of City Council members and for the benefit of developers rather than the city itself,” attorney Myava Escamilla said. “And they did it procedurally and improperly, and they did it without disclosing conflicts of interest. Believe me, we’re just scratching the surface.”

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the city of Menifee, the former city manager, the former city attorney, the city clerk, the community development director, and three council members at the time, including Councilwoman Sue Kristjannson, as well as Chris Thomas, who was chairman of the Planning Commission.

Miller filed the lawsuit in July 2012, and a judge was poised to dismiss it early this year if his attorney didn’t better state the case. Last week, she filed an amended complaint, narrowing the points she’s asking the judge to rule on and better outlining their assertions on the other points.

In January 2012, Miller was dismissed from the Planning Commission when Kristjannson chose to have him replaced.

She made that decision not long after she was appointed to the council after Councilman Fred Twyman’s unexpected death in June 2011.

Although Miller’s dismissal sparked criticism from some council members who said the decision to replace him was illegal and unethical, former City Attorney Joe Fletcher concluded that Kristjannson could replace the commissioner with her own appointee.

The city’s ordinance states that a planning commissioner may be removed by his or her appointing council member or by a majority vote of the City Council — which did not take place when Kristjannson announced her intention to replace Miller. And Escamilla noted that Miller’s vacancy was never publicly posted per the city ordinance.

In his suit, Miller is alleging that the defendants “had personal and political motive to orchestrate” his removal because he objected to the city spending more than $1 million on a general plan — essentially the city’s blueprint for long-term development — that he says doesn’t significantly differ from the Riverside County Integrated Project that the city had been operating under since its incorporation in 2008.

The only significant difference — according to a suit alleging actions amounting to “little more than embezzlement” — was allowing a higher density of housing within the economic development corridor along Interstate 215, a decision with which Miller disagreed.

“Who does it favor? Who does it benefit? Residential developers. Period. That’s it,” said Escamilla. “And they spent $1.2 million submitting it and unlawfully kicking him out, embarrassing him and humiliating him.

“Marc spent 15 years of his life trying to get the city incorporated, and these folks did a lot of damage to him personally,” she said, noting that Miller has since had a stroke.

Although Thomas declined to comment on the lawsuit, he said the general plan crafted by The Planning Center did differ from the county’s plan. In fact, Thomas said the Planning Commission has only considered land-use and traffic circulation, just two of a number of elements included in cities’ general plans.

“It is not the exact same plan,” said Thomas, who is still on the commission. “We significantly changed the land-use map from what came over from the RCIP. When I was the chair, that’s primarily what we were negotiating. I don’t know how he can say” it was the same, he said.

In an email Wednesday, Interim City Attorney Julie Biggs said the city was considering its next course of action, which could include filing a motion to have the case dismissed.

“The plaintiff, after failing to appear at the last hearing on this matter, has filed a last-minute amended complaint based on the same theories that were previously rejected by the court, adding some new alleged facts,” Biggs said. “The city code and legal precedent strongly favor the city’s position, and we expect that the court will confirm that upon final disposition of the case.”